1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in DVC No. 1 of 2012 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) on the file of the XI Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The brief facts necessary for considering the criminal petition are that the marriage of the first respondent was performed with the petitioner on 14.08.2006, the marriage was consummated, thereafter some disputes arose between the parties which resulted in filing the petition for dissolution of marriage (O.P.No.500 of 2008) in the Family Court, Secunderabad. But, the petition was dismissed for the petitioner’s absence in attending the Court pursuant to its direction for reconciliation. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a complaint before the Protection Officer under the Act alleging physical, mental emotional, verbal and economic harassment by the petitioner against her. Thereafter, from the report of the Protection Officer, DVC No.1 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Act came to be filed before the XI Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad which case is now sought to be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC.

4. The ground on which the domestic violence case was sought to be quashed is that four years after parting ways between the parties, the complaint is filed under the Act, cognizance of which is barred by virtue of the limitations provided for in Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and in view of the express provisions of Sections 28, 31 and 32 of the Act, 2005 read with Rules 15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules (for short ‘the Rules).

5. According to the petitioner, the second respondent last resided with him nearly four years prior to filing of the complaint by her before the Protection Officer under the Act and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint filed by her.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Section 28 of the Act which deals with procedure and lays down that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 and the offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 31 of the Act deals with penalty for breach of protection order by respondent and Section 32 of the Act lays down cognizance and proof, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable and also 15(6) of the Rules lays down that when charges are framed under Section 31 or in respect of offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other offence not summarily triable, the court may separate the proceedings for such offences to be tried in the manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and proceed to summarily try the offence of the breach of Protection Order under Section 31, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the proceedings contemplated under the 2005 Act are the criminal proceedings and any complaint made under the Act has to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. if it is not filed within the prescribed period therein, the complaint would be barred by limitation and therefore is liable to be rejected.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-wife would submit that there is no limitation provided for under the entire 2005 Act for taking cognizance of domestic violence case, even if the parties to the case became separated four years prior to the com